Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi
Per Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member :
This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Kolkata dated 28.02.2007 was earlier disposed of by the Tribunal vide its order dated 19.06.2013. There was, however, a mistake in the said order in not adjudicating the additional ground raised by the assessee and a Miscellaneous Application, therefore, was filed by the assessee seeking rectification of the said order. The said application was allowed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 28.07.2017 passed in M.A. No. 55/KOL/2017 and the order dated 19.06.2013 was recalled for the limited purpose of adjudicating the admissibility of the additional ground and deciding the issue raised therein on merit. Accordingly, the case has been heard on this limited issue.
Assessment Year: 2003-2004 2. The additional ground raised by the assessee reads as under:- “For that on the facts of the case, computation of book profit under section 115JB is not applicable to the assessee-Bank, therefore, the whole computation under section 115JB is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal”.
As the issue raised by the assessee in the additional ground is purely a legal issue and all the relevant facts for adjudication thereof are available on record, we have admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee. The ld. D.R. has not also raised any objection in this regard.
The ld. representatives of both the sides have also agreed that the issue involved in the additional ground raised by the assessee is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2009-10 rendered vide its order dated 30.12.2015 passed in & 113/KOL/2013. A copy of the said order is also placed on record and perusal of the same shows that a similar issue has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee vide paragraphs no. 3.2 & 3.3, which read as under:- “3.2. We have heard the rival submissions and we find that this issue is squarely covered by the co-ordinate bench decision of this tribunal in the case of UCO Bank- vs.- DCIT in ITA No. 1768/KOL/2009 dated 27.11.2015 for the Asst Year 2002-03. The Tribunal while rendering this judgement duly appreciated the relevant provisions of section 211 of Companies Act, 1956, Insertion of Explanation 3 to section 115JB of the I.T. Act. 1961, with effect from 1.4.2013, relevant provisions of section 2(5) of the Companies Act, 1956, definition of 'company' under Banking Regulation Act, 1949, definition of 'company' under Companies Act, 1956, Notes to Clauses to Finance Act, 2012 on the subject of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) while introducing Explanation 3 to section 115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961, intention behind introduction of MAT provisions. Circular No. 762 dated 18.2.1998 on the subject of MAT, the Memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance (No.2 ) Bill, 1996 on the subject of MAT and relevant rules of legal interpretation. The tribunal also placed reliance on the following decisions:-
* Surana Steels P. Ltd vs DCIT reported in (1999) 237 ITR 777 (SC); Assessment Year: 2003-2004 * State Bank of Hyderabad vs –DCIT reported in (2013) 33 taxmann.com 312 (Hyderabad- Tribunal) vide order dated 7.9.2012;
*Maharashtra State Electricity Board vs JCIT reported in (2002) 82 ITD 422 (Mumbai Tribunal) vide order dated 6.8.2001;
*Kerala State Electricity Board vs DCIT reported in (2010) 329 ITR 91 (Ker); * Indian Bank vs Addl CIT in /2010 dated 3.8.2011 for Asst Year 2000-01,
* Kurung Thai Bank vs JCIT reported in (2012) 49 SOT 12 (Mumbai Tribunal);
* Union Bank of India vs ACIT in to 4706/ Alum/2010 for the Asst Years 2002-03 to 2006-07;
* ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd vs ACIT reported in 2012- TIOL-690-ITAT-Mumbai in ITA No. 2398/Mum./2009 dated 10.10.2012 for the Asst. Year 2003-04;
* Bank of India vs Addl. CIT reported in 2014 (5) TMI 929 in ITA No. 1498/MUM./2011 dated 9.4.2014 (Mumbai Tribunal).
It was held by this tribunal that the provisions of section 115JB of the Act are not applicable in the case of the assessee bank and further held that the amendment brought in section 115JB of the Act read with Explanation 3 thereon by the Finance Act 2012 is applicable only with effect from Asst Year 2013-14 onwards in line with the Notes to Clauses of Finance Act 2012 .
3.3. Respectfully following the co-ordinate bench decision of this tribunal in the case of UCO Bank (supra), we also hold accordingly. Hence the ground no. 2 raised by the assessee in this regard is allowed”.
As the issue involved in the present case as well as the material facts relevant therein are similar to A.Y. 2009-10, we respectfully follow the order of the Tribunal for A.Y. 2009-10 and hold that the MAT provisions of section 115JB are not applicable in the case of the assesese for the year under consideration. The additional ground of the assessee’s appeal is accordingly allowed.
Assessment Year: 2003-2004 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12th day of October, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) (P.M. Jagtap) Judicial Member Accountant Member Kolkata, the 12th day of October, 2017 Copies to : (1) United Bank of India, 16, Old Court House Street, Kolkata-700 001 2) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 069 (3) CIT(Appeals)-VI, Kolkata (4) CIT- , Kolkata (5) The Departmental Representative (6) Guard File TRUE COPY